ACG52 Posted July 21, 2013 Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) So in other words, no. Your 'theory' can't produce anything. If it can, show us the math. Show how your 'theory' predicts the ratio of primordial elements. Do you even know what the ratio is? Show how your 'theory' (a sad misuse of the word) predicts the black body spectrum of the CMB. Do you even know what a Black Body spectrum is? Show, don't just say it does. Edited July 21, 2013 by ACG52 1
PureGenius Posted July 21, 2013 Author Posted July 21, 2013 My credentials are knowledge itself my discoveries are well thought out my mathematical skills are limited it seems you have no real argument against my theory but lack of understanding.
ACG52 Posted July 21, 2013 Posted July 21, 2013 So you have no educational background, you've simply made up your ideas with no background or support. Your 'theory' cannot make any predictions or explanations of experiment or observations, and in fact, contradicts everything that mainstream science says. My arguments against your 'theory' is that is says nothing, has no scientific support, and is simply gibberish.
PureGenius Posted July 22, 2013 Author Posted July 22, 2013 You have allot to say in a thread you claim to have no reason to believe or support what is your motivation Ac ? Also I find it telling that I was banned for four days for personal attacks against you and now after repeated insults and your still b allowed to continue to in your open ended attack on my education level.
ACG52 Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 I've asked about your education, as it is germane to your supposed 'theory'. My criticisms have all concerned the fact that your 'theory' is a vapid piece of nonsense, which certainly doesn't meet even the lax standards of the speculations thread. So far, you've been unable to support it in any way, other than saying 'I know I'm right because I thought it up.'
PureGenius Posted July 22, 2013 Author Posted July 22, 2013 I would not like to be banned again so I will just say this nonsense is not a scientific term nor is gibberish . I will not discuss this further with acg52.
ACG52 Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 o I will just say this nonsense is not a scientific term nor is gibberish Neither is your 'theory'.
MigL Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Where exactly does GR predict that an extremely dense concentration of mass or energy behave as a white hole rather than a black hole ? Is it by the same mechanism that "simple time variances I describe are well within the scope of einstienian physics" ?
swansont Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Are we still discussing the possibility of my theory being correct ? ! Moderator Note Popcorn Sutton's hijack has been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77687-black-hole-hijack-split-from-2u-time-mirror-bh-thread/
PureGenius Posted July 22, 2013 Author Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) I think all the matter in our universe arrived through a white hole moving at many times the speed of light at this point the matter was slowed enough for galaxy's stars and civilizations to unfold in a normal timeline. As the speed increases exponentially under the pressure of the white holes unbelievable force. This area of the inner universe I have named th the existence zone where time moves like it does now ie an average human lifespan around 80 years . Beyond this point imagine another giant circle this is the speed of light vector or S.O.L.V. for short ,all matter hits 286,000 mps time stops ie human lifespans increase by approximately 1,920 years .Of course up till this point human lifespans will increase gradually . Once the solv is reached I speculate all objects become highly luminous and energised this space beyond the solv I call the high energy output zone. Once all matter begins to exceed the speed of light time may reverse and begin moving backwards but it is not important because at somewhere around this point in space the white hole will become a black hole and reverse spin pulling all the matter backwards through space. Then the matter enters the black hole and it's sped up to many times the solv this energy then arrives at a distant point in space and forms a twin universe. In the space between universes there is what I have termed time mirror this is not barrier but a way to explain the duality of the space time construct .The time differential can be explained by the reversal of time, when matter is sped up to many times the solv time goes backwards so the two universes actually form at the same time vector. As in one universe is going out from the white hole but the universe it is has already arrived at many times the sol before this universe was born. This creates a perfect system that is always renewed through its own circular motions. There is allot of very interesting reasons this theory makes sense .I also postulate that the atomic nucleus of an atom contains a black hole or white hole.This explains Einstein's spooky action at a distance as light can travel ie information between these two distant points Instantly.Through their respective black or white hole. As the ancients used to say microsm macrosm. There is allot more but I will stop here if u take time to read this thank you. Also my name is Shawn James if u would like to endorse my theory or prove it mathematically I have come up with allot more concerning the flow and stability of one side of the Dual Universe again it's great to get feedback from people of different disciplines . Edited July 22, 2013 by PureGenius -1
PureGenius Posted September 5, 2013 Author Posted September 5, 2013 An object that is emitting light if it is traveling in excess of the speed of light, would still not be visible to a stationary observer as the o object would be moving faster than the light it was emitting, so I predict there are objects in the universe well in excess of the speed of light barrier ,we just have no way of registering these ultra fast objects . 1
ajb Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 An object that is emitting light if it is traveling in excess of the speed of light, would still not be visible to a stationary observer as the o object would be moving faster than the light it was emitting, so I predict there are objects in the universe well in excess of the speed of light barrier ,we just have no way of registering these ultra fast objects . But no observer would ever measure a macroscopic object (with non-zero mass) to be moving faster than the speed of light. It sounds like you are thinking about some version of a tachyon. Tachyons with negative mass squared are known to be unstable and do not actually propogate faster than light. But then I have no idea what kind of "species" of tachyon you are descrbing here and if they could be stable. You could be talking about Lorentz violating theories, I just don't know. Anyway, we have no evidence for faster than light partices and so we have little reason to belive they actually exist, though that has to be decided experimentally. But then you say that we should never be able to detect them. So in what sense to they exist?
PureGenius Posted September 5, 2013 Author Posted September 5, 2013 (edited) We should use a vortex accelerator at just below the speed of light light we need to alter the field into a vortex to attain that additional velocity mimicking black hole mechanics if the rotational velocity is high enough that should push us up to the speed of light, also the particles can be measured on a plate or something anything they can impact then energy levels can be accessed, at thier higher velocity. Of course the energy May have a different frequency at the speed of light so it's hard to say if they're going to register . I think science will soon find objects with mass can attain the speed of light. Edited September 5, 2013 by PureGenius
ajb Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 I think science will soon find objects with mass can attain the speed of light. Based on what?
PureGenius Posted September 5, 2013 Author Posted September 5, 2013 (edited) That we will develop a way to see these object's. Also if we add some electrified plasma right below c in the accelerator in a high speed vortex might push a particle up to c. If the particle reaches 99.9 c then The solution is to add particles in a vortex with the opposite electrical charge, this could cause the additional acceleration needed at cern. Once the particle is past c the energy it contained will still be moving at c so we need to then slow the particle below c to register it. Edited September 5, 2013 by PureGenius
ajb Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 That we will develop a way to see these object's. But what objects? You have been very unclear here and I just don't understand what else you have said. Why would we expect such superluminal objects? I am not saying that physics simply cannot allow such objects, but the context in which they could arise needs exploring. Lorentz violation is one possible avenue to explore, or are these some more exotic type of tachyon? Without a good mathematical model here I am not sure we can really examine your concepts.
PureGenius Posted September 5, 2013 Author Posted September 5, 2013 (edited) My math is not adequate Ajb it's great to get some intelligent feedback though. The acceleration I describe in my theory could actually be caused by the magnetic field of the central black hole and the electromagnetic fields of galaxies being opposite polarity. Edited September 5, 2013 by PureGenius
ajb Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 My math is not adequate Ajb it's great to get some intelligent feedback though. Without some proper models here all you are doing is stringing some scientific sounding words together. That is why your reception here has not been quite as welcoming as you might of liked. But please remember this is not a personal attack, but rather an critique on how you are working. Please remember that it is a well tested phenomena that a massive particle cannot be accelerated to a speed of c or above. Only massless particles travel at c and anything that travels faster would be rather exotic. 1
PureGenius Posted September 5, 2013 Author Posted September 5, 2013 If an object like a electromagnetic galaxy attains 99.999 percent of the speed of light then it is hit by a wave of highly ionized electrified plasma this would push the object faster than the speed of light .
ajb Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 If an object like a electromagnetic galaxy attains 99.999 percent of the speed of light then it is hit by a wave of highly ionized electrified plasma this would push the object faster than the speed of light . What are you talking about?
PureGenius Posted September 5, 2013 Author Posted September 5, 2013 A wave from the universes central black hole and it's affect on individual galaxy's, this is most likely the mechanism that causes galaxy's to continue accelerating.
ajb Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 (edited) Do we see such large bursts of plasma in our Galaxy? And where is the black hole at the centre of the Universe? Edited September 5, 2013 by ajb
Delta1212 Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 If an object like a electromagnetic galaxy attains 99.999 percent of the speed of light then it is hit by a wave of highly ionized electrified plasma this would push the object faster than the speed of light .You get diminishing returns for adding energy as you approach the speed of light. You could put in all of the energy that it took to reach 99.999 percent of the speed of light a second time in a giant burst and all it'll just add a few more 9s on to the end. It would literally take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a massive particle to the speed of light.
PureGenius Posted September 5, 2013 Author Posted September 5, 2013 I do not think an object with mass can be physically accelerated using force I'm saying an electromagnetic wave traveling at 2 c a plasma cloud thrown out from our central black hole ,it would be more of bounce the waves magnetic polarity impinging on the galactic magnetic field then a sudden acceleration of say 200,000 miles per second . I also don't think any object can attain infinite mass .
ajb Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 I do not think an object with mass can be physically accelerated using force I'm saying an electromagnetic wave traveling at 2 c... But electromagnetic waves always (locally) travel at c. ...a plasma cloud thrown out from our central black hole ,it would be more of bounce the waves magnetic polarity impinging on the galactic magnetic field then a sudden acceleration of say 200,000 miles per second . Okay, are you thinking about our galaxy as being having an active galactic nucleus? I don't think the Milkyway is particularly active rather quite I believe. Just be aware that the plasma ejected in such jets from known active galaxies is highly relativistic, something up to 99.995% of the speed of light, but this is still below the speed of light. I also don't think any object can attain infinite mass . That is good.
Recommended Posts